eddyj

Not to take away from the discussion, but I'm interested in what exactly the philosophy behind an "anarcho-capitalist" is. Capitalism and anarchy cannot coexist, and I think the notion that capitalism is a strictly "dog-eat-dog" socio-economic policy is false. It is precisely not "dog-eat-dog" because it protects our human rights as individuals. Therefore, if it were to benefit me financially to kill someone, I still could not do it and maintain my view on human rights. In a capitalistic society, government is absolutely necessary to protect those rights, and nothing more. I don't remember reading anything specifically about flag-waving in Ayn Rand's works yet so I can't comment on her beliefs. I will say that in my own opinion I am becoming less and less proud to yield an American flag since to so many people it means simply that everyone should be happy at the expense of everyone else. I recently purchased the "Don't Tread on Me" flag, and am quite proud of this American symbol, though.

I would ask her to clearly define altruism before you attack her philosophy. If she means it to be helping others that she loves, or because she enjoys the response/gratitude, etc, it would be innappropriate to assume she means self sacrifice for the good of others, since her doing good is in fact in order to receive some value herself. If she does indeed mean self sacrifice, I'd think as an Objectivist or Objectivist student you would be able to explain your position. For real world examples, though, look at every socialist state that ever existed.

I suggest reading Nathaniel Branden's article on unionization in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. I started to read an essay by an author Mr. Branden quoted, Ludwig VonMises, and it too provided some insight into where unions came from and what purpose they serve. In the essay, he states something along the lines of "unions have the right to organize, but to use coercive force to mandate a minimum wage and work standards is unethical and a violation of rights. Since this is exactly what they do, their role as understood today would not and could not exist in an entirely free society." (Not a direct quote) In thinking back, also, I would say that unions received tons of support because of some highly misunderstood isolated incidences of employee abuse. I would relate the literature of the time to something like a Michael Moore movie today, but this is obviously entirely speculation on my behalf. From a business point of view though, it makes very little sense to abuse employees since businesses must compete for workers just like any other asset. If company a and b do the same thing and pay the same wages, if company a makes employees work 16 hour days and take no breaks, while company b recognizes that shorter days with a break provides more profit and happier employees, obviously as an employee you would work for company b. Edit: I should add, I mean profit to company b because of increased production (healthier, happier employees = production = profit).

I'm new here, so first, hello all! Second, When I was at the RCA lobby a couple years ago the mural struck me as entirely socialist. It certainly was not a display of individual freedom, capitalism, or greatness at all. It actually over-emphasized the "duty of collective labor" if you will, since so many of the tasks being performed were explicitly being performed in groups (i.e. carrying massive weights etc). I don't discredit the source since I have read one that supports your story but I wonder what has happened since. Maybe the Rockefellers didn't smash the work entirely...